5.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Istanbul.
6.  On 2 March 1993 the Istanbul Public Prosecutor's Office filed an indictment against the applicant and seven other suspects for bribery and being an accessory to bribery in transactions concerning medical equipment supplied to various polyclinics. The prosecutor requested that the applicant be charged and convicted under Articles 80, 212 § 2 and 216 of the Criminal Code.
7.  On 9 March 1993 the Istanbul Assize Court commenced the trial against the applicant and the other suspects. It held its first hearing on 13 April 1993, in which it heard statements from the suspects.
8.  On 30 June 1993 the court decided to seek an expert opinion on the financial records and transactions of the relevant polyclinics. It requested a list of experts from the University of Istanbul. On 12 July 1993 it appointed 3 experts.
9.  The trial resumed on 10 September 1993, shortly after the judicial recess. Upon the withdrawal of an expert, the court appointed a new one.
10.  On 28 December 1993 the court decided to notify the experts about the time limits for the submission of their report. On 1 February 1994 the court notified the defendants that the experts had requested an extension of time. With no objections submitted, the court granted it.
11.  On 10 May 1994 the report was submitted. The following day, the court held a hearing. The applicant's representative stated the he would submit his observations at a later date and the court granted a period time.
12.  Shortly after the judicial recess, the court held a hearing in which it obtained the prosecutor's observations. The defendants were granted a further period of time for their defence submissions.
13.  On 11 October 1994 the court acquitted the defendants for lack of evidence.
14.  Upon the appeal by the Ministry of Health, however, the Court of Cassation quashed this ruling on 11 July 1995 in respect of the applicant and five other suspects.
15.  On 6 October 1995 the Istanbul Assize Court recommenced the trial. The applicant's representative requested an extension of time, which the court granted. Since the applicant and some of the co-defendants did not attend, the court summoned them for the next hearing and postponed the proceedings.
16.  On 16 January 1996 the court took the statement of one of the defendants who had not attended an earlier hearing.
17.  At the hearing dated 9 April 1996, the applicant's representative submitted a petition requesting the court to expand the scope of its factual examination. Among his specific requests was the ordering of a new expert report. In addition, a co-defendant requested a rectification review of the Court of Cassation's decision.
18.  The court denied these requests, holding that they were unwarranted under the circumstances and could only be intended to prolong the proceedings. Nonetheless, it granted the motion for a new expert examination restricted to the amounts of bribery and the transactional connections among the defendants.
19.  The applicant's legal representative did not attend the next hearing.
20.  The new expert report was submitted on 24 June 1996. The next day, the court held a hearing in which it granted the defendants additional time for their observations.
21.  Following the judicial recess, the court held a hearing on 4 October 1996, in which the representative of one of the co-defendants requested the proceedings to be stayed until a final ruling on their rectification review before the Court of Cassation. Another motion was submitted asking the court to appoint yet another expert. The court denied both motions.
22.  Neither the applicant, nor his representatives attended seven consecutive hearings held between 19 November 1996 and 9 April 1997.
23.  At the next hearing held on 28 May 1997, the applicant's representative requested additional time to submit further observations, which the court granted.
24.  In addition, some of the applicants reiterated their request for the expansion of the factual examination. Once again, the court denied it, holding that it was aimed at prolonging the proceedings.
25.  The applicant and his representative did not attend the next hearing held on 1 July 1997, in which the prosecution submitted its observations on the merits. The court granted the defendants time to submit their counter observations.
26.  The applicant and his representative also failed to attend four of the subsequent hearings held between 1 October 1997 and 20 March 1998.
27.  On 8 May 1998 the court granted an extension of time to the defendants for their final observations. During the following four months, it obtained submissions from each defendant.
28.  On 22 September 1998 the court convicted the applicant of being an accessory to bribery. It considered the amount of the bribery relatively small and sentenced him to one year, ten months and twenty days' imprisonment and fined him 29,108,333 Turkish liras (TRL).
29.  On an unspecified date the applicant appealed.
30.  Upon the applicant's specific request, the Court of Cassation scheduled a hearing for 8 March 2000. Having heard the applicant's final statement, the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment on 29 March 2000, by amending the duration of the prison sentence and the amount of the fine.